Possible global cooling?

[streetfighter 2]

I love selective science. Today man is warming the Earth and causing extinction.

That's just one of several causes of the current extinction epoch (as I mentioned earlier). It sounds to me like you're the one being selective.

However when the Earth warmed naturally to a higher point then it is now thousands of years ago man is STILL blamed due to hunting yet the warmer climate had no effect.

That last quote I included in my previous post said this,

There were more than 20 glacial-interglacial cycles
during the ~1.6 million years of the Pleistocene, but only in the last one, and only in North
and South America, were these climatic changes associated with wholesale extinctions
of large mammals.​

Why is warmer climate not the cause back then when we had no "control" but now they are? Really?

I'd imagine that there are a number of contributory factors:
-global warming isn't uniform or linear
-global warming isn't the only/principal cause of the current era of the Holocene extinction
-human caused destruction of habitats breaks natural climate regulation mechanisms
-additional mechanisms (feedback)

I'm no climate expert though. I just like snowboarding.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Ignorance is believing the IPCC. A political group designed to push bad science. Ignorance is dismissing scientists with real data that shows gaping holes in climate models used by the warmers as crackpots. These dissenters publish peer reviewed reports as well but they are but ignored by the mainstream media across the globe. 15 years ago the template was set but thankfully people are finally coming around to seeing that global warming is a giant scam. There is no warming caused by humans that impacts the planet in a negative way and there is no proof over the course of our existence that we are causing it. What's more, all models that forecast warming done over the past 15 years have been dead wrong. But keep thinking that skeptics and scientists who show opposing data are ignorant.

I agree. We should be careful and avoid knee jerk reactions from ether camp. Its just way to early to tell who is right.

Fucking Al Gore and carbon taxes blah blah have done more damage as opposed to helping at all because now there's this "liberal", socialistic stigma attached to this scientific issue.

I agree. Politics should stay out of everything but politics.

 

[W1zzard]

read what those sceptics say at the wikipedia page .. it's not like they say nothing is happening and everything is fine and humans dont have any effect at all

 

[bucketface]

i really can't believe the ignorance and the statements some people are making here.. you guys should read the latest ipcc report (not the executive summary this time). these people are careful with their words, the data is there, you can look it up.

i guess some people here still believe in creationism?

that definitely needs its own thread for discussion.
all i have to say is i'm not entirely satisfied with any of the theories concering the beginning of the universe. personally i'm inclined to belive that the "big bang" was the beginning of our galaxy and not the entire universe and that the universe itself is much older than 14bn years. im also skeptical on the whole expanding universe thing. i find it difficult to belive that in a universe where none of these bodies are sationary, that not one is moving in our general direction. plus how accurately can they determine our planets routation around the sun, the solarsystems rotation around the milkyway and it's relative movement in relation to other galaxies to determine this.
getting way off top here

on topic:
what we know is that co2 levels are higher than ever before, in recorded history. temperature levels will likely rise, on an average global level, about a few degrees over the next few decades. what we don't know is how exactly this will affect the climate on a global scale other than it being warmer.
if that video that was linked earlier is anything to go by, then co2 levels of no lower than 200ppm and no higher than 300ppm should be our target.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Yeah, the IPCC is looking for funding and nothing generates more funding in science than fear.


I say be smart about what you are doing. For example, if you have the option to not drive somewhere, don't. If you have the option to buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, get it. If you don't need a light on, turn it off. If you are comfortable at a lower/higher temperature, adjust your thermostat. If you are feeling really ambitious, plant a tree and take care of it. If you are handling toxic materials, dispose of them properly. The list goes on. In the end, these things are ultimately good for the enviornment, regardless of "global" anything. If the planet is going to warm, there's little any of us can do about it.

 

[W1zzard]

that the "big bang" was the beginning of our galaxy

how does that explain the cosmic microwave background?

the universe itself is much older than 14bn years

not according to the more or less arbitrary definition of "universe"

that not one is moving in our general direction

andromeda is moving toward our galaxy

how accurately can they determine our planets routation around the sun

365.256363004 days. i'm sure much more accurate numbers are around, the rest with surprising accuracy. cosmic microwave background again for the relative motion of the earth in the cosmic mb reference frame == universe reference frame

new thread to discuss any of these

 

[W1zzard]

the IPCC is looking for funding

13 million from the us in 2012 and the house of representatives voted that this money shouldnt be spent anymore.

if climate change comes and hits us (which it may or may not) cost in the 13 trillion $ range is not unrealistic

 

[TheMailMan78]

read what those sceptics say at the wikipedia page .. it's not like they say nothing is happening and everything is fine and humans dont have any effect at all

I'm not saying that ether. I'm sure man has some effect but not to the extent we could make much of a difference one way or another. Like I said I am no denier I just question things.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

13 million from the us in 2012 and the house of representatives voted that this money shouldnt be spent anymore.

Yup, the cash-cow milking recently ended. That doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of money between about 1996-2010. Al Gore is proof of that.

if climate change comes and hits us (which it may or may not) cost in the 13 trillion $ range is not unrealistic

And what's to say it wasn't inevitable? Building next to water has proven to be a blessing (water supply and an efficient means of transportation) but also a curse (all structures built close to water risk flooding on an annual basis).

Simply put, we have to deal with what happens, as it happens, be it earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding, wild fires, volcanoes, etc. We live on a hostile rock and that hostility is never going away. It is simply a fact of life. If you focus all your attention into "global warming" then what of the other hazards we know, without a doubt, are going to happen. Like Yellowstone's caldera erupting or eventually getting hit by an asteroid. These things have a vastly greater effect on the planet than "global warming" and the threat they pose is very real. Are we even remotely prepared for a global drop of 5C over decades caldera volcanoes have proven to induce? Nope.

 

[W1zzard]

we have to deal with what happens, as it happens

based on current measures against climate change that's exactly what will happen.

the key issue here is that "dealing with it" will be [most probably] more expensive than "avoiding it". but since only their current and next term in office matters for decision makers, nobody is going to do anything about it

look at results from Stockholm, Kyoto, Copenhagen, Cancun .. nobody wants their economy to take a hit

 

[TheMailMan78]

based on current measures against climate change that's exactly what will happen.

the key issue here is that "dealing with it" will be [most probably] more expensive than "avoiding it". but since only their current and next term in office matters for decision makers, nobody is going to do anything about it

Glad to see corruption in politics isn't exclusive to the US.

So what you are saying W1zz is the biggest threat to the environment of Earth is politicians and their "hot air"?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

How do you propose we avoid it? There's 6-7 billion people on this rock and every single one of them is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide. They all also have energy requirements that are best fulfilled by burning carbons. Unless there is a mass extinction of the human race, it is going to happen assuming they are correct. There is no averting it--only delaying the inevitable.

I'll tell you: they want us to put trillions of dollars into select international corporations to "fix it." That sounds a lot like the bank and auto bailouts of 2009, no? What did that get us? Deeper in debt and that's about it. Don't believe their bull. They can't do jack shit about it either--they just want to paint a pretty picture and take your money.

Desperatation drives innovation. I say let the $13 trillion "hit" to the economy come. Once people undeniably see the threat, either they'll innovate or die, correcting the issue either way. That's how nature works.

 

[W1zzard]

here's 6-7 billion people on this rock and every single one of them is converting oxygen into carbon dioxide.

1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year 2190 million tonnes per year

world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year

 

[TheMailMan78]

1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year

world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year

I wonder how much of an increase has been made since the "War on Terror" started with all the transport thats been going on.

 

[W1zzard]

I wonder how much of an increase has been made since the "War on Terror" started with all the transport thats been going on.

400,000 barrels per day for the us military @ 400 kg co2 per barrel = 160 million kg per day = 160,000 tonnes per day = 58.4 million tonnes per year, as much as 60 billion people

 

[TheMailMan78]

400,000 barrels per day for the us military @ 400 kg co2 per barrel = 160 million kg per day = 160,000 tonnes per day = 58.4 million tonnes per year, as much as 60 billion people

Thank you

Yet another reason to end this bullshit.

 

[bucketface]

365.256363004 days. i'm sure much more accurate numbers are around, the rest with surprising accuracy. cosmic microwave background again for the relative motion of the earth in the cosmic mb reference frame == universe reference frame

new thread to discuss any of these

yeah agreed,
but first i don't think i expressed my self as clearly as i would have liked.
just the above quote. i meant taking in all these relative motions together when everything is in motion would make it rather difficult to determine whether or not the universe is generally expanding. not to mention that our sample of the universe is rather limited considering it is infinite (potentially many more galaxies beyond our capabilities to detect) and our relatively brief existence. all i was trying to say is that it would be more accurate to say the universe is in motion rather than expanding.

again on topic:
i think that over population and apparently whats happening to the sea might end up being bigger concerns for us than global warming and the comming years.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2078840,00.html
http://www.longislandpress.com/2011/06/21/worlds-oceans-in-big-trouble/
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/oceans-on-brink-of-catastrophe-2300272.html
i think this might be a better reason to reduce carbon emmitions and just generally "green" up.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

1 kg per person per day = 6 million tonnes per year

world co2 emissions 2007 = 29321 million tonnes per year

Human breathing accounts for about 9% of world emissions based on 0.9 kg of CO2 released a year. But that is also beside the point. Those people need food, transportation, shelter, clothing, and there is a growing need for electricity even in developing nations. Not every individual's needs result in the same amount of CO2 emmissions but every individual contributes to it.

If you halve the world population, for example, you could expect the amount of CO2 emissions to be approximately halved as well. If there were less than a million people on Earth, do you think "global warming" would be a concern to them? Nope. It is a consequence of over population.

Thank you

Yet another reason to end this bullshit.

If they weren't using that oil to blow up another country, they'd be using it for "training." Might as well get something done in the process.

 

[W1zzard]

Yet another reason to end this bullshit.

oil reserves in iraq: 143,000,000,000 barrels+

Human breathing accounts for about 9% of world emissions based on 0.9 kg of CO2 released a year

source? math?

whether or not the universe is generally expanding

galaxy red shift

it would be more accurate to say the universe is in motion rather than expanding.

since we can't observe the universe from outside to determine a reference frame to compare to we can't say anything about the movement of the universe itself.
the contents of the universe are in motion? yes of course -> static universe, disproven

 

[Easy Rhino]

ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.

 

[TheMailMan78]

ahh, the good old population control debate is now about to pop up.

Yup. After our next act will be gun control.

If they weren't using that oil to blow up another country, they'd be using it for "training." Might as well get something done in the process.

Bullshit. They don't transport the 101st every damn other month.

 

[Easy Rhino]

remember, people need to be controlled, so long as we are the ones doing the controlling!!

 

[FordGT90Concept]

source? math?

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

It's a blog but the only source I've seen that actually did the math.

Bullshit. They don't transport the 101st every damn other month.

The merchant marine ships that do the transporting are almost always in motion. They only sit in port when being resupplied, retrofited, or repaired. The 101st doesn't have to be on them for them to be moving goods.

The same goes for aircraft carrier strike groups.

 

[TheMailMan78]

The merchant marine ships that do the transporting are almost always in motion. They only sit in port when being resupplied, retrofited, or repaired. The 101st doesn't have to be on them for them to be moving goods.

The same goes for aircraft carrier strike groups.

I don't think you know exactly how military mobilization works. There is a reason they call it that ya know?

 

[W1zzard]

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007/03/27/math-how-much-co2-is-emitted-by-human-on-earth-annually/

It's a blog but the only source I've seen that actually did the math.

thanks, i forgot to x 365 my daily number

anyone know if human co2 is considered co2 neutral since it's based on biofuel?

edit found something: http://www.skepticalscience.com/does-breathing-contribute-to-co2-buildup-in-the-atmosphere.html